Review of Australian and New Zealand support to The University of the South Pacific
Review of Australian and
New Zealand support to
The University of the South Pacific
2010–2012
Draft version 3.1
08 January 2013
This report has been prepared by Professor Kate Ashcroft and Professor Joan Cooper under management of the AusAID Education Resource Facility
Amendment history
Version no. / Date / Brief description of change / Author1 / 26/10/2010 / First draft / Kate Ashcroft
1.1 / 07/11/2012 / Quality assurance / Adeola Capel & Alex Usher
2 / 18/11/12 / Made the changes throughout at the request of reviewers as follows: / Kate Ashcroft
The structure of the report
Style from first person to impersonal
Added tables showing links between aid, targets and outcomes
Added more material to Executive Summary and Introduction
Included more about the methodology up front
Moved information on Projects to an annex
Made links to ToR, AusAID and NZ MFAT objectives more explicit
Made the links between inputs, outcome and processes and AusAID and NZ MFAT Partnership targets more explicit
Taken out some text from Background. Have included a brief summary of the main foci of the outcomes and indicators
Added more evidence and examples to judgments throughout. Made clear that the ANZ has affected inputs and processes and outcomes and that this last especially can only be inferred.
Added more qualitative data and data tables
Added recommendation that more focused indicators might help.
Put Strategic Plan foci and outcomes in an annex
3 / 1/1/13 / Make changes as a result of the comments from the review committee as follows: / Kate Ashcroft
More discussion on why specific recommendations are made, the alternatives considered, the links between the analysis of the area of support and the recommendations made and prioritising of the recommendations.
More discussion on possible alternatives modalities of funding and of the links between the recommended area of support
Discussion in methodology mitigation of possibility that stakeholders as beneficiaries of Australian and New Zealand support may impede their candour in providing feedback to the team.
More discussion of how the success of A/NZ assistance could be measured.
More discussion with regard to moving from core funding to funding systems on a per EFT or a per student basis.
More discussion of implications of modifying USP’s three-year contract policy; reducing inequities between facilities in Suva and regional campuses; and addressing gender and disabilities issues.
Specific changes to improve accuracy as requested by USP.
More illustrative examples, detailed explanation, and corrections to improve accuracy as requested by AusAID.
More discussion of emerging issues in the context for funding
3.1 / 8/1/13 / Substantive edit of final draft. / Petronella Nicholson
This report was commissioned through the Education Resource Facility – an Australian Government, AusAID-funded initiative. The views in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of AusAID or of any other organisation or person.
Contents
Acronyms and glossary 7
1 Executive summary 9
1.1 Key findings 9
1.1.1 Partnership objectives 9
1.1.2 Modality 10
1.1.3 Level, timing and duration of funding 10
1.1.4 Management arrangements 11
1.1.5 Projects supported 11
1.1.6 Influencing factors for forward support 11
1.2 Good practice and lessons learnt from implementation of the partnerships 11
1.3 Key recommendations 12
1.4 DAC and AusAID quality criteria ratings 13
2 Introduction 14
2.1 Objective of the review 14
2.2 Methodology 15
2.2.1 Constraints 16
3 Context 17
3.1 The USP vision and strategic plan 17
3.2 Australia–USP partnership objectives 18
3.3 New Zealand–USP partnership objectives 19
4 Partnership objectives and outcomes: Governance 20
4.1 Discussion: Outcomes and impact in the context of the Strategic Plan 21
4.1.1 Governance and Management Enhancement and Strengthening (GMES) Project 21
4.1.2 2008 audit review 22
4.1.3 Management of Council’s business 22
4.1.4 Funding and risk management 23
5 Partnership objectives and outcomes: Institutional capacity, management
and financial health 25
5.1 Discussion: Outcomes and impact in the context of the Strategic Plan 27
5.1.1 Finances, aid funds and financial sustainability 27
5.1.2 Planning and budgeting 27
5.1.3 Project funding 27
5.1.4 Recommendations 1 and 2: Project funding 27
5.2 Management of risks 27
5.3 Monitoring and reporting 27
5.3.1 Recommendation 3: Reporting 27
5.4 Human resource management 27
5.4.1 Recommendation 4: Human resource development 27
6 Partnership objectives and outcomes: Student support 27
6.1 Discussion: Outcomes and impact in the context of the Strategic Plan 27
6.1.1 Recommendation 5: Support for English language and ICT skills development 27
6.1.2 Equity issues 27
6.1.3 Disability and learning disadvantage 27
6.1.4 Ethnicity 27
6.1.5 Recommendations 6 and 7: Support for students with learning disabilities and disadvantages 27
7 Partnership objectives and outcomes: Teaching and learning 27
7.1 Discussion: Outcomes and impact in the context of the Strategic Plan 27
7.1.1 Graduate employability 27
7.1.2 Program quality 27
7.1.3 Scholarships 27
7.1.4 Recommendation 8: Scholarship offerings 27
7.1.5 Distance and flexible learning and eLearning 27
7.1.6 Recommendation 9: Improved ICT for eLearning on regional campuses 27
8 Partnership objectives and outcomes: Research, graduate affairs and innovation 27
8.1 Discussion: Outcomes and impact in the context of the Strategic Plan 27
8.1.1 Research activity over the review period 27
8.1.2 Research and consultancy at regional campuses 27
8.1.3 Research students 27
8.1.4 HR issues in research 27
8.1.5 Recommendation 10: Project funding for regional research needs 27
9 Partnership objectives and outcomes: Regional focus 27
9.1 Discussion: Outcomes and impact in the context of the Strategic Plan 27
9.2 Regional campuses 27
9.2.1 Recommendation 11: Invest in regional campuses 27
9.3 USP relationships with regional stakeholders 27
10 Modality of aid to USP 27
10.1 Alternative aid modalities 27
10.2 Per student funding approach 27
10.3 Program-based approach 27
10.4 Setting performance targets 27
10.4.1 Recommendation 12: Move towards outcomes and outputs 27
11 Level, timing and duration of funding 27
12 Management arrangements between A/NZ and USP 27
12.1.1 A/NZ engagement with USP and regionally 27
13 Projects supported 27
14 Influencing factors for the way forward 27
15 Conclusions: Good practice and lessons learnt from implementation of the
partnerships 27
15.1 Governance, management and financial health 27
15.1.1 Recommendation 13: Continue to fund through partnership agreements 27
15.2 The role of the partnerships in achieving the Strategic Plan 27
15.3 Reflections on other impacts of funding 27
16 Recommendations for the next partnership funding cycle 27
17 Concluding remarks 27
Annex 1: Terms of Reference 27
Annex 2: Matrix of the foci contained in the terms of reference 27
Annex 3: Methodology 27
Annex 4: Documents analysed prior to the mission 27
Annex 5: Individuals and groups interviewed before and during the mission 27
Annex 6: Additional material supplied during and after the mission 27
Annex 7: Progress with AusAID-funded projects 27
Annex 8: USP’s report of progress of the Strategic Plan targets and
key performance indicators 27
Annex 9: DAC and AusAID criteria ratings: Specific questions for consideration 27
List of tables
Table 1: Achievement of targets in governance (Australia–USP)
Table 2: Achievement of performance measures in governance (NZ–USP)
Table 3: Achievement of targets in institutional capacity, management and financial health
(Australia–USP)
Table 4: Achievement of targets related to audit review and HR strategy
(Australia–USP 2010)
Table 5: Achievement of performance measures in institutional capacity, management and
financial health (NZ–USP)
Table 6: USP student enrolments 2009–2011
Table 7: Financial performance of USP 2009–2012
Table 8: Achievement of targets in student support (Australia–USP)
Table 9: Achievement of targets in relation to students with special needs (Australia–USP, 2010)
Table 10: Achievement of targets in ICT and gender equity (Australia–USP, 2011)
Table 11: Achievement of targets in ICT and students with special needs (Australia–USP, 2012)
Table 12: USP retention rates of higher education student enrolments
Table 13: Male/female balance in USP staff
Table 14: USP student gender balance
Table 15: Achievement of targets in Teaching and Learning Policy and Plan
(Australia–USP, 2010)
Table 16: Achievement of targets in assessment activities (Australia–USP, 2011)
Table 17: Achievement of targets in work placements and distance learning
(Australia–USP, 2012)
Table 18: Success of students on Australian Regional Development Scholarships at USP
Table 19: Achievement of targets in research, graduate affairs and innovation (Australia–USP)
Table 20: Achievement of targets in regional focus (Australia–USP)
Table 21: Achievement of performance measures in regional focus (NZ–USP)
Acronyms
AARNET / Australia's Academic and Research NetworkADB / Asian Development Bank
ANU / Australian National University
AusAID / Australian Agency for International Development
AUQA / Australian Universities Quality Agency
CAPEX / Capital expenditure
CEDT / Centre for Educational Development and Technology
CELT / Centre forEnhancement of Learning and Teaching
CFDL / Centre for Flexible and Distance Learning
CFS / College of Foundation Studies
CROP / Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific
DAC / Development Assistance Committee
DFL / Distance and flexible learning
DFLSC / Distance and Flexible Learning Support Centre
DVC / Deputy Vice-Chancellor
EFTS / Equivalent full-time students
ESL / English as a second language
EU / European Union
FALE / Faculty of Arts, Law and Education
FBE / Faculty of Business and Economics
FNU / Fiji National University
FSTE / Faculty of Science, Technology and Environment
GMES / Governance and Management Enhancement and Strengthening Project
HR / Human resources
HLC / High level consultation
HRM / Human resource management
ICT / Information and communication technologies
IoE / Institute of Education
IT / Information technology
ITS / Information Technology Services
KPI / Key performance indicator
MFAT / Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
M&E / Monitoring and evaluation
Moodle / An open-source, community-based tool for learning
NGO / Non-government organisation
NZ / New Zealand
NZ MFAT / New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
NZUAAU / New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit
OCAC / Oceanic Centre for Arts and Culture
PACE-CD / Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development
PACLII / Pacific Islands Legal Information Institute
PIAS-DG / Pacific Institute of Advanced Studies in Development and Governance
PICPA / The Pacific Islands Centre for Public Administration
PIF / Pacific Islands Forum
PIFS / Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
PLP / Pacific Leadership Program
PSA / Postgraduate Students Association
PSO / Public Service Office
PVC / Pro Vice-Chancellor
REACT / Remote Education and Conferencing Tool
SAFT / School of Agriculture and Food Technology
SGDS / School of Governance and Development Studies
SLMD: / School of Land Management and Development
SMT / Senior management team
SPBEA / Secretariat for the Pacific Board of Educational Assessment
SPC / Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPOMS / Strategic Plan Online Management System
STAR / Strategic Total Academic Review
STHM / School of Tourism and Hospitality Management
ToR / Terms of Reference
TVET / Technical and vocational education and training
PIFS / Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
UGC / University Grants Committee
USP / University of the South Pacific
USPNet / USP’s Wide Area Network
USPSA / University of the South Pacific Student Association
VC / Vice-Chancellor
WB / World Bank
1 Executive summary
The University of the South Pacific (USP) is a key contributor to the development of South Pacific nations. USP serves the regional needs of its 12 member countries through education and training, research and consultancy services, and technical expertise. Its steady supply of graduates has contributed to meeting the human resource development needs of the region for 44 years.
Australia and New Zealand have supported USP since its establishment in 1968. The current Australia–University of the South Pacific Partnership Framework 2010–2012 provides support of A$25.15 million (approximately F$46.89 million). The New Zealand–USP Strategic Partnership 2010–2012 amounts to around NZ$14.8 million (F$21.78 million) over three years.
The two partnerships have provision for an independent review at the end of the period covered. This report reviews both partnership frameworks to evaluate the impact and outcomes of Australian and New Zealand (A/NZ) support and provides recommendations.
Two consultants undertook the review using a range of evaluation methods including desk review, field visits and stakeholder consultations, between September and October 2012.
1.1 Key findings
Australia and New Zealand have been crucial partners in assisting USP to achieve its strategic goals. There appears to have been a positive impact from the partnerships in:
§ learning environment for students
§ relationships with the region
§ relevance to members
§ quality and relevance of programs
§ inclusivity, especially through improved distance and flexible learning facilities
§ some improvement in students graduating with a better range of relevant skills.
USP appears to be a well-run institution, above average for universities in a development context. It has fully or mostly implemented the majority of the 2008 recommendations from the joint audit by the Australian Universities Quality Agency and the NZ Universities Academic Audit Unit. Finances have improved and USP is now operating within its budget. The funding mechanisms and monitoring and evaluation by Australia and NZ work well.
If USP continues to develop at its present rate, it is a realistic objective for it to become an ‘excellent’ university in many of its activities and to be a more significant contributor to the development of the Pacific region. USP needs time to embed the reforms commenced in the review period, and it would be a different and diminished institution without A/NZ’s substantial aid.
1.1.1 Partnership objectives
The objectives of the A/NZ partnerships are designed to be compatible with USP, and almost every objective is explicitly linked with a priority area of the University’s Strategic Plan. This makes the partnerships’ objectives clear and achievable.
The success of A/NZ’s assistance can be measured through the success of USP meeting its goals in the Strategic Plan. Such measurement, however, requires USP to have a robust monitoring and evaluation and performance measurement system. While these systems have progressed, they still require further development.